Mobil 1 Synthetic

[DBR]

I investigated Krytox a couple of years ago. I never could find out how well it worked under "boundary" lube conditions or if it had EP properties. What I did find out is that it is VERY expensive and the only solvent that will remove it completely is also VERY expensive. MSC Industrial Supply sells the grease. It lists for $34.61 for a 2oz tube.

Krytox was originally developed as an "O" ring and seal lubricant for high vacuum/low temperature applications like the Space Shuttle. There was info available on the Dupont website.

 

[Gun Slinger]

I investigated Krytox a couple of years ago. I never could find out how well it worked under "boundary" lube conditions or if it had EP properties. What I did find out is that it is VERY expensive and the only solvent that will remove it completely is also VERY expensive. MSC Industrial Supply sells the grease. It lists for $34.61 for a 2oz tube.

Krytox was originally developed as an "O" ring and seal lubricant for high vacuum/low temperature applications like the Space Shuttle. There was info available on the Dupont website.

DBR,

Yeah, the expense and matched solvent requirement is kind of a "deal breaker". From what little I have been able to find in regard to the presence of EP additives, there appear to be very few.

http://www.matweb.com/search/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=c929de9bb7f748f9a3f10d6605f3062c

These PFPE's (PerFlouroPolyEthers) are definitely "space age" lubricants and not very "expedient" at that. (unless you are already aboard the Shuttle)

Since it is a whole lot cheaper, a bit more obtainable and without all the complications, I'll be sticking with my favorite, M1 20w50 (VTWIN).

http://www.matweb.com/search/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=51dee515c05941a8af4976858947904f&ckck=1

I still think that the Krytox is pretty neat stuff, though.

 

[kolob10]

gun lubricant

I also vote for Mobile 1 20W50. It is as good as it needs to be. With normal firearm maintenance it is all I have ever needed for general lubrication. Corrosion resistance is adequate with normal use. The need for "special" additives is negated by the millions of dollars of research that the lube companies have expended to introduce the "perfect lube" and gain the competitive edge. As for me, I will spend my $$$'s on new toys not new additives. Godd shooting all! Great exchange of ideas here. Thanks all!

 

[buenhec]

Will Mobile 1 dry or gum up?

I will try mobile 1 at tommorrows match. Anyone left the oil in the gun a long time(storage)? Im wondering if it will dry up, gum or somthing like that. My Militec never dried or gummed.

 

[INTrooper4255]

I've been using it for a long time now, it doesn't dry up at all, that why I use it. Break Free will be gone in several days and the Mobil 1 stays around!

 

[JohnKSa]

Break Free will be gone in several days and the Mobil 1 stays around!

Since, according to the MSDS, the main ingredient of BreakFree is identical to the main ingredient in Mobil 1, I doubt your comment is correct.

BreakFree contains a solvent that will evaporate, but the primary lubricating ingredient is the same synthetic oil used in Mobil 1.

 

[INTrooper4255]

I used Break Free for years since it has been issued by our department and it evaporates VERY quickly, the Mobil 1 does not.

 

[Gun Slinger]

Since, according to the MSDS, the main ingredient of BreakFree is identical to the main ingredient in Mobil 1, I doubt your comment is correct.

BreakFree contains a solvent that will evaporate, but the primary lubricating ingredient is the same synthetic oil used in Mobil 1.

I don't doubt his comment at all. I have been using M1 for way too long with incredible results to believe otherwise. His experiences match mine. I have also had excellent results with Pennzoil Platinum and RedLine.

I used Break Free for years since it has been issued by our department and it evaporates VERY quickly, the Mobil 1 does not.

My experience matches that of INTrooper4255. I've been using M1 for over ten years and it by far outlasts BF CLP.

While the primary lubricating component of BF CLP and M1 is P.A.O., the CLP has a solvent (not to mention other components) in it which may contribute to a higher evaporative rate than M1, which despite having an AW/EP/Anti-Ox additive package, is predominantly P.A.O.

Here is the MSDS for Break Free CLP. It seems to be at best about 74% P.A.O. (includes other synthetic esters too):

http://hazard.com/msds/f2/bjx/bjxqr.html

BF CLP was one of my favorite lubes..........until I tried M1.

 

[JohnKSa]

Here is the MSDS for Break Free CLP. It seems to be at best about 74% P.A.O.

It's not completely made up of PAO since it contains corrosion preventives and solvents. It's worth noting that motor oils also contain additives--they're just not additives likely to be of any benefit in a firearm application. I believe a typical motor oil is about 85% base oil with the remainder made up of additives.

As per the MSDS, given that 3/4 of the content of a BF CLP bottle is the same PAO in Mobil 1, it follows that if you put a drop of BF CLP on a gun, 1/4 may evaporate but the other 3/4 of the drop (being the same stuff that Mobil 1 is made of) will last as long as Mobil 1 does. I don't see how that's open to debate.

Furthermore, I've seen some corrosion tests indicating that BF LP (without the solvent) doesn't do as good a job at corrosion protection as CLP (with the solvent). It seems that the solvent thins the lube on initial application, helping it to penetrate into small crevices and spread more evenly over the surface. Then the solvent evaporates (completely gone after about 2hrs) leaving the lubricant and corrosion protection in place to do their work.

Mobil 1 is significantly inferior to BF CLP (and most high-end firearm lubes) in terms of corrosion protection.

 

[Gun Slinger]

Although I have never made the claim that M1 exceeds BF CLP in terms of corrosion protection, I don't use it solely for its anti-corrosion properties and I have found its additive package to be quite sufficient in both lubricating and protecting all of my firearms, hunting and otherwise.(CCW)


Not calling you a liar, but when folks start tossing glowing superlatives (such as "significantly inferior") in my direction, I prefer to see proof of such. Assuming this to not be just more baseless internet rumor, I would love to see the supporting test documentation upon which you base this claim:

Mobil 1 is significantly inferior to BF CLP (and most high-end firearm lubes) in terms of corrosion protection.

I have been using M1 for over ten years (as specified above) in some rather harsh conditions accompanied by long to zero maintenance intervals in all sorts of hunting environments (ranging from S.E. Africa to Alaska) and have yet to see a speck of rust or corrosion on any of my hunting rifles or concealed carry pieces that could be attributed to significantly inferior corrosion protection offered by M1. While my personal experience is just that, I have never implied that it constitutes scientific testing of any sort and hesitate to accept the dubious superlative of "significantly inferior" when it comes to either the anticorrosion or lubricative properties of M1. (not to mention Redline or Pennzoil Platinum)

I look forward to viewing the documentation that supports the claim you have made above.

 

[JohnKSa]

http://www.6mmbr.com/corrosiontest.html

By the way, if you look back on page two you'll see that another poster mentioned that he had performed corrosion testing and found that BreakFree & EEZOX easily outperformed Mobil 1 in terms of protection.

 

[Gun Slinger]

Eh....not a particularly scientific procedure (no humidity cabinets, no calibrated thermometers, standardized salt spray solution, etc.) but as such, it is nonetheless, an entertaining "read".

 

[JohnKSa]

...(no humidity cabinets, no calibrated thermometers, standardized salt spray solution, etc.)...

The point is that all the samples were exposed to the SAME humidity, the SAME temperatures, the SAME salt spray solution.

Maybe the overall conditions weren't as tightly controlled as they could have been, but there's nothing that indicates that one sample experienced anything different from the other samples. (Other than the type of lubricant used.)

But I understand that the test was not as strictly controlled as you would like--why not perform your own test and post the results? I would certainly be interested to see the outcome.

 

[benEzra]

Since, according to the MSDS, the main ingredient of BreakFree is identical to the main ingredient in Mobil 1, I doubt your comment is correct.

BreakFree contains a solvent that will evaporate, but the primary lubricating ingredient is the same synthetic oil used in Mobil 1.

I think the difference is, Break Free is significantly runnier until all the solvent evaporates, so that it doesn't stay put well until the solvent is gone, and the excess runs off long before the solvent evaporates. As a result, the final coating of Break Free you end up with after runoff and evaporation is considerably thinner than you get with M1.

That can be a good thing, if you want the coating thin (like on the outside of a gun; M1 goes on thick and makes the gun gooey to the touch). On the inside of the gun, traditional gun oils thin out too quickly for my taste.

 

[JohnKSa]

If you read the corrosion tests in the link, it seems that it stays put pretty well. It was still doing an excellent job of corrosion protection 15 hours later. Hard to imagine how that could be true if it had "run off long before the solvent evaporates" (which takes about 2 hours).

 

[Gun Slinger]

...why not perform your own test and post the results?

John,

I believe that something worth doing is worth doing right.

Without the proper equipment and controls my results would be just as scientifically invalid as any other test run under such uncontrolled conditions. To establish a repeatable, scientifically valid result would require the use of the aforementioned humidity cabinet and other laboratory accoutrements to which I have no access. Would that I could, I might.

I remain to this day satisfied with my "real-world" (and obviously "unscientific") results obtained while using M1 synthetic 20w50 for the last 10+ years and see no need whatsoever to change at this time due to its stellar performance in my firearms and I find it to be adequate in its corrosion resistant properties. (it does have them, you know ) I have used the vast majority of the gun specific brands, synthetic and otherwsie, and none of them exceed the capabilities of M1 in my personal experience. In short, I am a "happy, satisfied customer".

For a few years, Armalite even had a Technical Note (Tech Note #65) in their website library that indicated that military small arms experts at Rock Island Arsenal had, upon concluding preliminary evaluations, found twenty weight synthetic motor oil to be an acceptable/adequate lubricant for the AR-15 (and other small arms) and even went so far as to actually recommend its usage in that role. I would defer to their expertise in that recommendation over anything short of valid contradictory scientific proof.

I suspect that the folks at Armalite would not make such a recommendation if they believed M1 to be an unacceptable or inadequate lubricant for the purpose. Fortunately, I retained a copy of that document for my records prior to its deletion/exclusion from their website.

M1 20w50 (VTWIN) is absolutely loaded with Molybdenum and ZDDP as part of its AW/EP "additive package" (just look up its UOAs and VOAs over on BITOG) and just as I did five pages ago in my OP, I still stand by my assertion that it is an excellent firearms lubricant that does just as well, and in some cases very much better, than the firearms specific products at a fraction of the cost.

In short, I have no stake or interest in what others use in the role of firearms lubrication and have reiterated time and again that the information in the OP was presented for the consideration of those interested in using it for that purpose.

 

[Gun Slinger]

I think the difference is, Break Free is significantly runnier until all the solvent evaporates, so that it doesn't stay put well until the solvent is gone, and the excess runs off long before the solvent evaporates. As a result, the final coating of Break Free you end up with after runoff and evaporation is considerably thinner than you get with M1.

That can be a good thing, if you want the coating thin (like on the outside of a gun; M1 goes on thick and makes the gun gooey to the touch). On the inside of the gun, traditional gun oils thin out too quickly for my taste.

Ben,

I agree with your observations. It is almost "greaselike" in its viscosity yet doesn't thicken at lower temperatures so much that it interferes with or retards the function of any of my guns.

I use it to lubricate my Tikka T3 Stainless (in .30-06) that I used for deer hunting just a few days ago in weather that had daytime highs in the mid-20s and found that it had a lower freezing point than I had.

 

[JohnKSa]

...if they believed M1 to be an unacceptable or inadequate lubricant for the purpose...

I don't think that anyone has so much as hinted that Mobil 1 is an inadequate lubricant. Since I'm advocating the use of CLP and it employs exactly the same lubricant I clearly haven't said anything along those lines nor would it make sense if I did.

Armalite even had a Technical Note ...went so far as to actually recommend its usage in that role.

Interesting. I suppose in a similar vein it's worth noting that Ruger used to (they still may) advocate the use of Breakfree CLP in their revolvers. I believe that FNH also recommends it for use in some of their products.

...the information in the OP was presented for the consideration of those interested in using it for that purpose.

Likewise the information in my posts is merely offered for the consideration of the user--it's not like I could force someone to use CLP...

 

[Jim Watson]

I don't know that the main constituent of Breakfree is "exactly" the same as Mobil 1's. The term polyalphaolefin (PAO) covers a wide range of chemical compounds and the blend is not necessarily the same from brand to brand. Or even grade to grade in the same brand like the several Mobil 1 lubes.

I have several different lubricants sold specifically for firearms, to include Breakfree, Militech 1, FP10, Friction Block, MMC, EzOX, Nanolube, LSA, Gunslick, Lubriplate, Anderol, Ballistol, and Snake Oil (really, from Dillon.) My gunsmith works out of a gallon of non-Breakfree military CLP and wishes he had bought more when available at gun shows.

All are formulated specifically for firearms by professional lubrication engineers, all of whom say theirs is best. But no two are the same, with different color, different viscosity, different additives, etc. They all seem to lube the moving parts adequately. So does Mobil 1.

I haven't bought any gun lube in years, a can lasts a good while and vendors are good about giving out samples at shooting matches. Free is good. I don't mind applying a separate corrosion protectant to the outside of a blue gun and Corrosion X or Sheath works well.

 

[JohnKSa]

My comment wasn't based on the fact that PAO was called out in both MSDS but rather that the same CAS number (CAS# 68649-12-7) was used in both products.

I don't mind applying a separate corrosion protectant to the outside of a blue gun...

Internal parts can also rust. That's where a combination product really shines.

And besides, if the goal is to save money I don't think buying a dedicated corrosion preventive and a separate lube will make the grade.

 

[Gun Slinger]

John,

I don't think that anyone has so much as hinted that Mobil 1 is an inadequate lubricant. Since I'm advocating the use of CLP and it employs exactly the same lubricant I clearly haven't said anything along those lines nor would it make sense if I did.

My last post was not intended to be "accusatory" towards you and I hope that you did not take it to be although I sense form your post that might have.

Actually, I was thinking of a few posts on page 4 (#85, #87 and #97) that had more than strongly hinted that the use of motor oil as a firearms lubricant should be eschewed at all costs when I last posted and perhaps I should've been a little clearer in making certain that you knew that the commentary was not directed at you. My apologies if that is how you construed my remarks.

 

[JohnKSa]

I did think it was in response to my comments but I certainly did not take offense. No apology is necessary.

 

[Gun Slinger]

I don't know that the main constituent of Breakfree is "exactly" the same as Mobil 1's. The term polyalphaolefin (PAO) covers a wide range of chemical compounds and the blend is not necessarily the same from brand to brand. Or even grade to grade in the same brand like the several Mobil 1 lubes.

Jim,

I think that you have made an excellent point.

Between brands there are different source basestocks in use and they differ substantially since they are synthesized by different manufacturers who use differing proprietary "starting points" in the manufacture of their respective synthetic basestocks.

As you, I suspect that even between grades within the same brand that PAO basestocks (or in the case of Redline, POE) are blended in order to achieve the necessary properties within grade.

The CAS number is a generalized material classification.

Since the various esters are similar in terms of both their respective toxicity and fire hazards (both pretty low), any of these "relatively minor" proprietary/performance differences are unlikely to fall outside the classification of the CAS# because the PAOs (and POEs) are, across the board, rather innocuous compounds.

 

[JohnKSa]

The CAS number is a generalized material classification.

Hmmm...

http://www.cas.org/expertise/cascontent/registry/regsys.html#q3

A CAS Registry Number, however, is unique and specific to only one substance regardless of how many other ways the substance can be described.

Since CAS Registry Numbers are not dependent upon any system of chemical nomenclature, they can:

Provide a reliable common link between the various nomenclature terms used to describe substances
Serve as an international resource for chemical substance identifiers used by scientists, industry, and regulatory bodies​

The idea that a CAS number is only a "generalized material classification" doesn't seem to be consistent with the entire point of the CAS registration system.

 

[Gun Slinger]

Chemical compounds can be described in many different ways:

Molecular formula
Structure diagram
Systematic names
Generic names
Proprietary or trade names
Trivial names

A CAS Registry Number, however, is unique and specific to only one substance regardless of how many other ways the substance can be described

Seeing this further down the page leads me to believe that all PAOs would still be grouped under just one CAS number regardless of how the particular functional group is modified in the PAO base molecule it is still a PAO. There are different esters that can fall under the nomenclature of PAO yet they are all PAOs and I see no way that a CAS number could be reasonably generated for each specific ester variation. As such, I'd still call it a generalized material classification.